For the inside scoop on why Medecins sans Frontiers (pardon my mangled French) left Afghanistan,
go check out some French papers. Or something filed by AFP. The main reason they left was because U.S. troops were issuing
leaflets saying medical help would be withheld unless people started turning in, or ratting out, those the U.S. considers
terrorists. MSF thought that to be very dangerous to their personnel. To say nothing of offensive. And I think they are right
on both counts.

What?

We take this
you’re with-us-or-against us stuff to the medical level? Cooperate or no medical treatment for you, you evil one? And
you doctors? You cannot be neutral. You are with us or against us – so make your choice.

KABUL, Afghanistan - Medecins Sans Frontieres became the first major aid agency to quit Afghanistan
since the fall of the Taliban, saying Wednesday that the government failed to act on evidence that local warlords were behind
the murder of five of its staff.

The Nobel prize-winning medical relief group, also known as Doctors Without Borders,
denounced the U.S. military's use of aid to persuade Afghans to snitch on insurgents, saying it risked turning all
relief workers into targets. It was also dismayed that Taliban rebels tried to claim responsibility for the June 2 attack
on its staff.

''We feel that the framework for independent humanitarian action in Afghanistan at present has simply
evaporated,'' said Kenny Gluck, MSF's director of operations. There is a ''lack of respect for the safety of aid workers.''

The withdrawal of Medecins Sans Frontieres, which had 80 international volunteers and 1,400 Afghan staff in the country
before the June attack, is the most dramatic example yet of how poor security more than two years after the fall of the Taliban
is hampering the delivery of badly needed aid.

More than 30 aid workers have been killed here since March 2003, rendering
much of the south and east off-limits.

… A purported Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility, and accused
the victims of working for American interests - a shock to MSF, which relies on neutrality to protect staff who
venture into war zones.

… The aid group … called on the U.S. military to halt its expanding use of humanitarian
work to win over skeptical Afghans.

U.S. and NATO troops are running a string of so-called Provincial Reconstruction
Teams across the country, setting up clinics, digging wells and doing other work normally carried out by civilians.

The military apologized
in May for distributing leaflets telling Afghans that they had to provide information on militants if they wanted assistance
to continue.

''We don't put anyone in danger,'' spokesman Maj.
Jon Siepmann said. Many aid groups were working effectively alongside American troops, he said. Others ''need to direct their
concern towards the Taliban, towards al-Qaida. We do nothing here but help.''

Summary?It got too dangerous.And one of the reasons it got too dangerous
was that there was lots of talk floating around – from us – that all this aid and medical stuff was fine, but
unless the locals got serious about giving up the evil ones among them, there was going to no more of it.

Medecins
Sans Frontieres wanted to be neutral – and just provide medical services in one sorry part of the world.We maintain no one is neutral.So they left, before more of
them died.

The AFP– the French press agency – late in the week had only a brief item on its English language service. And it contained this -

The United States said it "regretted" a decision by Medecins Sans Frontieres to pull out of Afghanistan
for security reasons and asked the aid organization to reconsider the move.

At the same time, the State Department
denied MSF charges that U.S.-led stabilization forces now in Afghanistan were using humanitarian aid to further political
and military goals.

In announcing the move, MSF, known in English as Doctors without Borders, blamed the Afghan government
for failing to protect aid workers and chase militants who killed five of its staff last month.

It also accused the
U.S.-led forces of blurring the boundaries between aid workers and military personnel and "endangering the lives of humanitarian
workers and jeopardizing aid to people in need."

Well, this all begs the
question.Can medicine be neutral in a time of war, or ever, really?Isn’t caring for the sick or injured or halt or lame or all the rest, really, a political act?What if the fellow you fix-up and make all better is someone who knows someone who
is a bad guy?Have you, the doctor who treated him, not then become one of these
terrorists yourself?